Creation Versus Evolution

Rami,

Allow me to give you the respect you deserve by offering you a detailed answer and, if you are willing, bare with me because I did a 12 hour shift and am quite tired.

Rami your comments are in Red

assalamu alaikum

Israfil

Do you agree Evolution is a scientific process?

Bismi'llah ir-Rahmaan ir-Raheem

Wa'Alaikum Salaam

First, this question is slightly misleading. Let us be clear and not confuse between what is scientific and what is natural. Evolution is a natural process  which scientific observation defines through empirical study.

Do you agree Science can only prove what it can observe?

Again, this question may be misleading as you state science can "only" prove observable things. Although I'm inclined to agree that science can prove observable facts I would have to add that science can, in addition to proof ,can come up with logical and theoretical propositions that are true.

Do you agree that for an animal to change from one form to another its DNA must change?

Agreed.

Can you show me where scientists have explicitly observed this process of DNA changing or rather new genetic information being added to DNA in order for the creature to grow in a specified manner according to its DNA like the laws of genetics state all creatures do, and not simply arrived at the phenomenon of evolution by conclusion.

You have to understand that evolutionary thought has existed for centuries starting with the Greek Philosophers (and Roman thinkers) to Arab biologist such as Al-Jahiz. What gave evolution its strong support was the prediction of genetic mutation (See: Gregor Mendel) which lead to further studies (and further splits in Mendelian and Darwinist evolutionary thought) to the eventual reconciliation of evolution and natural selection which in themselves lead to the construct of modern evolutionary synthesis.

Evolution has been observable through artificial selection, the intentional selection of traits in a population of organisms. I mean, we can see evolution ourselves by simply breeding a Rotweiler and Great Dane. This process has been done by humans for centuries as well.  As far as physical observation of evolution the following pictures are a few examples provided by Wikipedia of evolution:

Geographical isolation of finches on the Gal�pagos Islands produced over a dozen new species.

Simulation of genetic drift of 20 unlinked alleles in populations of 10 (top) and 100 (bottom). Drift is more rapid in the smaller population.

The above (Genetic Drift) explains more on natural selection:

Genetic drift

Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles in the offspring generation are a random sample of those in the parent generation, and are thus subject to sampling error.^[14] As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward in a random walk. This drift halts when an allele eventually becomes fixed, either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate some alleles from a population due to chance alone, and two separate populations that began with the same genetic structure can drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.^[52] The time for an allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller populations.^[53]

Although natural selection is responsible for adaptation, the relative importance of the two forces of natural selection and genetic drift in driving evolutionary change in general is an area of current research in evolutionary biology.^[54] These investigations were prompted by the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result the fixation of neutral mutations that do not have any immediate effects on the fitness of an organism.^[55] Hence, in this model, most genetic changes in a population are the result of constant mutation pressure and genetic drift.^{[56] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution}

^{So yes, evolution had been observed by scientist and is an observable phenonmenon.}

This is akin to saying philosophy should not be taught, rather you mean philosophy should not be taught as a science.

I mistakenly said "Philosophy" when I should have said theology.

La illaha illa llah is not a private belief and should be spread.

"There is no compulsion in religion" saying "There is no god but Allah" is a spiritual claim and must be proven. Since, no religionist ever has proven that God is physically comprehensible (which would be an inherit contradiction to the nature of God) it reduces itself, therefore, into a faith based claim and such claims should remain in private. I'm not gonna contradict myself here and say there is no evidence that a supreme deity does not exist-I'm merely one who believes in divine emanation.

Proving Evolution:

Billions of years ago there was a dessert fork which through mutation slowly evolved into a relish fork, then a salad fork, and then a dinner fork... and finally a carving fork.

A lot of skeptics (religious fundementalists) say there is no proof that these evolved from one another and that they were most likely created/invented by people, but evolutionists believe the similarity between these forks proves that they evolved from one another, and to say that "Humans" invented them is "unscientific". Some have gone as far as saying  that humans dont even exist since there is no proof that humans invented the forks

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

i will insha allah post my reply to the scientific aspects of the theory at a later time.

Again, this question may be misleading as you state science can "only" prove observable things. Although I'm inclined to agree that science can prove observable facts I would have to add that science can, in addition to proof ,can come up with logical and theoretical propositions that are true.

Theoretical propositions are not the realm of facts unless thoroughly proven by actual observation they are up for interpretation and reinterpretation, we are not dealing with the facts of the moment or even century but absolute facts.

The evolutionist argument against God is solely based on the point that God is not Physically Observable, it is only reasonable we apply the same standards to them otherwise they would be even more deserving of ridicule for lack of scholarly standards.

You have to understand that evolutionary thought has existed for centuries starting with the Greek Philosophers (and Roman thinkers) to Arab biologist such as Al-Jahiz.

Amr bin Bahr al-Fukaymi al-Basri was a Mutazilli, a heretical sect in Islam who's Aqeedah was on shaky ground. There are a number of concepts in evolution which are outright kufr Natural selection being the main one, it would not surprise me if it was in the end simply a Mutazili invention [or confusion as this group was known for attributing things to other than God but not to the extent of kufr] because clearly all observations they could have made at the time were by naked eye or very basic microscopes if they even where around at the time. So now we have to question the basis for there theory and why it was picked up blindly later on.

From wiki http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/History_of_evolution

800s Ad: The medieval Muslim scientist and philosopher Al-Jahiz first describes the struggle for existence which was similar to natural selection.

They could simply be attributing natural selection to him, since they are not versed in theology I doubt they could perceive the subtle differences in logic that would be found in any Muslims arguments.

1000s Ad: The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Haitham elaborates Al-Jahiz's theories and writes a book that explicitly argued for biological evolution (although not by natural selection).

1770: Baron d'Holbach one of the first atheists in the Western world publishes The System of Nature which contains early evolutionary concepts such as the idea that humans evolved over the course of time and that every living thing changes in response to its environment.

Here we have the hand of the atheist attributing creation to other than god prior to that many did not take this path and it is unclear if Amr bin Bahr al-Fukaymi al-Basri a mutazili also did. The Idea of Nature being the force behind change is a pagan one, over the years it seams the concept stayed the same, but the definition of nature to a pagan is vastly different than to an atheist. When modern man says nature is the force of change or evolution most people imply that some sort of process which can be scientifically observed is the agent of change how can this ever be an argument against God he created nature/environment/creation itself. It is an argument when an Atheist declares it a force of change in the absolute sense without possible evidence but as an atheist ideology. The evolutionist in Question Stops talking about science and begins talking about theology, so then nature or natural selection to them becomes a force other than God, Have they Observed a force other than God at work in creation?

They chalange the existance of God by saying things like man evolved from an ape, Have they proven this by clear observation or simply concluded on observale facts,

Why Evolution is supported

My reasons

1) All humans have shared genes, however, all of our genes are hereditary from our parents, eye color, hair color, skin tone etc. Our genetic makeup is the result of earlier adaptation in various environments. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

2) Phenotype is the result of the interaction of the genotype in their environment. Genetic variation happens through the fluctuation of one particular allele which may or may not become prevalent in other forms of that gene. What does this mean? Evolution forces these alleles to shift in one direction or another. This partial explanation shows the driving force of Evolution on a cellular level. Of course there are several processes that could be explained however I wanted to note what I found very important as one of the driving forces of cellular evolution. 

3) Natural selection is a necessary component to the survival of certain organisms. A simple example would be the environmental changes. Most individuals with dark skin complexion are more suitable for hot environments versus those whose skin has a lighter pigmentation. Individuals with lighter skin complexion living in hot climates normally do not last long and eventually would develop skin cancer and die off. Every individual may not succumb to such a fate but a lot would and those that survived may produce offspring some tens of thousands of years later with slightly darker skin complexion.

Central Argument why Creationism doesn't fit

What's interesting here is Creationism is not necessarily criticized for its central belief in God, but because of its story of Noah's Ark. The Ark has an estimated size of a football field in which God has given Noah for him and his family and 2 of every animal on earth. Now mind you, scientist have discovered 12,000 new species! this does not mention species which existed 5,000 years ago. Now given the Ark's size how is it possible to fit 2 of perhaps over 12,0000 species in one boat the size of a football field? God who is the author of all things does not make any errors but perhaps the story in accordance to Biblical standards may be slightly off?

Even if we were suppose that all these species were able to fit on the boat what about after the flood?